Nino's researching guide

[nino33]

Greetings!

Below is a guide for researchers I came up with when I was part of the research team.
It's missing a couple things that I don't have permission to post (the TBL Poor-Average-Good-Top values for all the Leagues & the SI average Attribute value for the player's CA), but I thought some might still find it interesting/helpful




Here's an overview of the basics for researchers...

In addition to basic bio information, the five things you need first for every player
- CA
- PA
- Player Role
- Offensive Role
- Defensive Role




For CA, you're using the League's Poor-Average-Good-Top values

Some general guidelines...

• top pairing D - 1st line = Top CA
• top/2nd pairing D - 1st/2nd line = Good CA
• 2nd/3rd pairing - 2nd/3rd line = Average CA
• 7th D - 4th line = Average/Poor CA

For goaltenders...

• some starters = Top CA
• remaining starters/a few backups = Good CA
• most backups = Average CA
• a few backups = Average/Poor CA

Depending on the League you may have more or less near the top or bottom




For PA, when you're using the variable PAs (from -1 up to -15) you're looking for the highest predicted League the player is expected to play in. Again you use the League CA Guidelines Chart, and look at the top/best League you can imagine the player playing in...for most cases you can use Average (if you think he might make the League) or Good (if you're pretty sure he'll make the League)

What age do you stop using variable PAs and use "set" PAs? age 23 for skaters and 26 for goaltenders
At what age should CA and PA match/be the same? age 30 for skaters and 31 for goaltenders

Most players age 27-29 would have a PA 5-20 above their CA (in most cases there's not a huge opportunity for significant growth at that age)




Player Role is what takes the most "judgment"

There are guidelines/methodology that will help with this process, I think most if not all has been posted before.....based on available stats, apparent talent level, the player bio (things like size. Position, country from/country playing in), and what can be found online about a player, Player Role can be determined without knowing the player well! Knowing the player well is even better!




For Offensive Role and Defensive Role we don't yet have individual guidelines for each of the Player Roles, but we do have this...
- an Off/Def Role Total of 20-24 makes sense for the "lower level" and/or "average" players
- an Off/Def Role Total of 24-28 makes sense for the very good players
- and Off/Def Role Total of 28-32 makes sense for the superstars

The Offensive/Defensive Role Researcher Guidelines from 2012/13 are still effective general guidelines http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... guidelines




Some other "common hockey sense" guidelines...
- Playmakers should have a Pass Tendency of 12+
- Snipers should have a Pass Tendency of 8 or lower
- Grinders should have low Flair
- Snipers should have a high Offensive Role (15+)
- Defensive players should have a high Defensive Role (for forwards 12+ and for defensemen 15+)
- the highest values (18+) in Offensive/Defensive Role should usually be used reserved for the highest talented players worldwide




Regarding Attributes, what is key is following
- the average Attribute value for CA Chart
- Key/Essential/Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes as per the Player Role

General principles
- Key and Essential Attributes will almost always be at the average or higher than the average Attribute value for the player's CA
- Non-Essential Attributes will almost always be noticeably lower than the average Attribute value for the player's CA
- Irrelevant Attributes will almost always be significantly lower than the average Attribute value for the player's CA

[nino33]

For further details/editing information

• This thread will give you the importance of Attributes depending on the Player Role & it'll give you the overall average of Attributes expected for CA http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 10&t=16777
• I've also done some testing showing the CA/Attribute relationship for Forwards http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 10&t=16776 and Defensemen http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 10&t=16776 and Goaltenders http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 10&t=16774
• This thread will tell you which Attributes never change, and includes testing that shows development of Attributes over different ages http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... 4&start=25

[nino33]

This post relates to this comment above regarding Player Roles

Player Role is what takes the most "judgment"

There are guidelines/methodology that will help with this process, I think most if not all has been posted before.....based on available stats, apparent talent level, the player bio (things like size. Position, country from/country playing in), and what can be found online about a player, Player Role can be determined without knowing the player well! Knowing the player well is even better!

I've been working recently on the 1974 database, giving Player Roles to players.

As I worked through player after player I found some to be more difficult than others. Some were relatively easy to determine, and it wasn't the more obscure players who were giving me trouble it was some of the well known players - I kept wondering about what exactly the Key/Essential Attributes were for the different Player Roles, so I could pick the EHM Player Role that best represented the player I was working on


I find I can struggle accounting for both Key and Essential Attributes & Non-Essential and Irrelevant Attributes (sometimes a particular Player Role's Key/Essential Attributes make sense for a player are accompanied by Non-Essential/Irrelevant Attributes that don't)

Recently I decided to focus more on the Key/Essential Attributes, and I ended up writing down just the Key and Essential Attributes for Player Roles; the writing at the top in ink is the Key Attributes, and those in pencil underneath are the Essential Attributes.

I'm finding it helpful (especially for seeing the small differences between similar Player Roles), so I thought I'd share...

[nino33]

In addition to adding Player Roles I'm adding Offensive Role and Defensive Role too; here's the previous comment from above regarding this

For Offensive Role and Defensive Role we don't yet have individual guidelines for each of the Player Roles, but we do have this...
- an Off/Def Role Total of 20-24 makes sense for the "lower level" and/or "average" players
- an Off/Def Role Total of 24-28 makes sense for the very good players
- and Off/Def Role Total of 28-32 makes sense for the superstars

The Offensive/Defensive Role Researcher Guidelines from 2012/13 are still effective general guidelines http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/vi ... guidelines

I think the above is pretty similar to my very old notes (below); this is pretty representative of what I'm doing with the 1974 database

[archibalduk]

These photos of your notes with colouring/circles/etc explain things extremely well. I need to start rating UK players again this season and will use this as a starting point.

[Smirnov2Chistov]

Any difference with a 'Rugged' defenseman vs. an 'Enforcer' defenseman Nino?

While I get that the Enforcer-type is becoming extinct in the NHL, I have barely seen 'Enforcer' type prospects develop. I'm not sure if it's because the game labels it differently? I mainly see Power-Forward type players get into fights and hit hard.

[nino33]

Any difference with a 'Rugged' defenseman vs. an 'Enforcer' defenseman Nino?

Comparing the two, I think Rugged having Defensive Role as a Key Attribute would be a significant difference.

Looking at Key/Essential Attributes the two roles are very similar...looking at differences I suspect in most cases Checking and Work Rate as Essential Attributes for the Rugged D probably results in a better hockey player in comparison to the Enforcer benefiting from Dirtiness

Both roles have Offensive Role as an Irrelevant Attribute, so neither is likely to be good offensively (AFAIK the game doesn't override Offensive/Defensive Role ratings...I wonder if on average human researchers are more likely to give Rugged D higher ratings in Offensive Role - I'm pretty sure I do)


Previous testing has shown the top CA levels of both roles are not high (very rarely exceeding 140 CA), and modern databases have a pretty high average CA

I don't think the game is set up to have all Player Roles have a similar CA distribution/range.
The top offensive positions have a higher range; roles like Rugged and Enforcer aren't meant to really have players who have a 150-200 CA. With the "NHL CA Range" going from 100-200 to 125-200 there's less opportunity for the 110-140 CA players.

While I get that the Enforcer-type is becoming extinct in the NHL, I have barely seen 'Enforcer' type prospects develop. I'm not sure if it's because the game labels it differently? I mainly see Power-Forward type players get into fights and hit hard.

Power Forwards do have Hitting as a Key Attribute, and Fighting as an Essential Attribute

In my testing from earlier this year, looking at just the top 372 NHL forwards by CA (31 teams x 12 forwards = 372),
there were 2 Enforcers at startup and 30+ years later there were 0 (for Power Forwards there were 45 at startup and 30+ years later there were 30) https://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/v ... 10&t=20236

The average CA for the top 372 forwards was 141.5 (126-190 range). 30+ years later the top 372 forwards had a 148.7 CA avg (128-198 range).

As mentioned, I don't think Enforcers are really meant to have players who have a 150-200 CA and with the higher NHL CA Range there's less opportunity for the 110-140 CA players (especially for Enforcers who have more emphasis on fighting skills and less on hockey) - like in real life!



P.S. As an example/reference point for comparison, looking at the WHA/NHL teams in the 1974 database, at startup there are 35 Enforcers (18 F and 17 D). Of the thirty-five only four have a PA above 140 (one with a 145 PA, the other three with a -8 PA).

The top 360 forwards (30 teams x 12 forwards = 360) have an average CA of 133.4 and a 115-185 CA range.

[Manimal]

I have not created an enforcer in a long time, now. They are as good as extinct to me.
Rugged D, Grinder F and Power forward is more suitable to the tough players coming up nowadays

[nino33]

I have not created an enforcer in a long time, now. They are as good as extinct to me.
Rugged D, Grinder F and Power forward is more suitable to the tough players coming up nowadays

Makes sense to me (I think this is especially true for potential NHL level talent)